I think the final policy did incorporate a number of recommendations that were made—there were a number of parties who contributed recommendations to that process—but there were still some weaknesses in the policy. In my view, the policy still very much treats algorithmic policing technologies as inevitable, as a net benefit so long as we can mitigate some of the risks. I think what you've been hearing from the witnesses today, including me, is that this is not the right framework from which to approach this technology, given the considerable harms that can be enacted through these technologies and the social context into which they're introduced.
One aspect of that policy process that was not formalized but that was discussed was the creation of an independent expert panel that includes expertise from a range of different areas, not simply technical expertise. That didn't come into fruition. There's still some conversation around that. I do think that's a step that could also be helpful at the federal level, to provide some kind of additional guidance and governance around not just facial recognition but all forms of algorithmic policing technologies.